Skip to main content

tv   The Communicators Michael Powell  CSPAN  March 30, 2019 6:28pm-7:00pm EDT

6:28 pm
pbs and then in 1979 a small network with an unusual name roll. a big idea. let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span open the doors to washington policymakers for all to see bring content from congress and beyond in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 hour cents, the climate change and there is no monolithic media and other is narrowcasting a youtube stars are a thing but c-span's a bit idea is more relevant today, no government support c-span. television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> michael powell, ceo of
6:29 pm
internet and television associate. as nicely transitioned to the significant a broadband that helps compensate the market competitive pressures on video and they manage the video better than people would have imagined. i think there are thriving businesses and recently announced a really bold initiative and it attempt to dramatically increase in the american home over the next several years and substantial and a big statement of their confidence in their future.
6:30 pm
>> 95 million people subscribe to broadband the of the traditional cable companies and havethan 90 million now video services. this pay-tv on the way out? >> i think the centrality internet is on the way in and watch the internet has swallowed almost every proceeding or physical model whether retail or taxi services or anything else. i think anybody who is plotting a future in communications or any other business as a viable service has got to reckon with the opportunity presented by a distribution system and so i have always known for decades it would first take its toll on voice that we saw and take a as aon how dated we share
6:31 pm
matter of time before video was compelling application. networkious we see is a . contrary to the cynical view where out to kill these things well done anything but a whiff really empower their possibility . these things we helped engineer in architect and i think as a good thing. >> we want to introduce a new face to the communicators. our guest reported this week. >> thanks for having me. i didn't want to ask you about bigshift there is this event coming up next week where there expects to announce a new streaming service. what are the implications for tech giants, increasingly invest in video services? >> some of it is quite clear,
6:32 pm
clearly no there is a powerful streaming alternative to classic video services and we see cord 4%, verynd 3%, different for cable companies that is fully understood as some is significant once but nonetheless, we see at the client and subscribers to the pay-tv model there is still millions of americans on that platform and on not on the verge of collapsing but it has lost andet share to the services satellite probably hurt by more genetically than cable and that is one thing that is pretty obvious and visible in the industry and the demonstrations that the power of tech companies and they are in lots of businesses, you would not call
6:33 pm
apple a hollywood studio where google and youtube a media business. lots of other things that it takes advantage of their surveillance service for. what i think is disruptive is googles principal business is searching and getting audiences is not the end but to collect and monetize more data from another human activity and amazon is a principal business and he uses the video as a secondary service to draw more data and what is really different, not really our account support desk counterparts, different things than we are. the goal for them is not the what the surface produces. combined with the data they have , phenomenally powerful set of
6:34 pm
that are engines marginally available to others in the space. what are the means in the short term is not clear. in the long-term, dramatic revolution. if you're not in their databases or do not have access, very difficult to see how you plot the future against growing. >> you talked about the power that these companies have that's a conversation we're having in washington and lawmakers bring it up, do think we are in a tech lash moment? >> no doubt about it. this is the biggest whip lash that dancing in public sentiment. these companies could do absolutely no wrong. they walked around town with a halo around their head.
6:35 pm
they told a narrative themselves that they are connecting the world and all important. and beneficial to society and i that politicians drank kool-aid pretty aggressively, starting with the 2016 election, shocking flip of that has been quite dramatic. some of it is probably overdone and overdue. there are corporate actors with a capitalism motive and incentive and permitted to get to central positions without thoughtful scrutiny. whether it's too much, you can have the debate.
6:36 pm
taken place years ago. remember being at a conference antitrust issue was upset with me and i was commenting on the antitrust law and i said every century is a great case that defines antitrust for that generation. the next great case in world history will be google and this person was upset. it is materializing and will be around tech power that will do fine it. 2020 presidential candidate have been talking about the antitrust problem and she brings up she wants to break up facebook and amazon and this awhat you focus
6:37 pm
little bit of a mistake of this thing. and different things googles in the search business is the leaving -- it is the leaving platform it amazon is and we really have to be careful of the understanding and you can probably only evaluate that when a company specific basis. i think structural remedies are a lot harder the weft approved the case. -- and we have to prove that case. dr. mischer you have not exhausted every other remedy and i do not know if that is in the short term. i think the scrutiny is it is and it is worth the
6:38 pm
government evaluating, typically antitrust is about to big companies merging 2-1. but these companies are very good. they kill companies and their cradle. they can see the technology promise of what they created and foresee the threat to them and say that is not a big merger. it does not seem like a big merger and classic terms or going after snapchat. and i think they are identifying threats to technology and that is something that antitrust is a bit of a challenge. they are normally built on price. will the merger cause prices to go up? they do not charge people.
6:39 pm
a you think about, how am i being harmed chris mark which means you have to understand how these data market power? thedo not have price or antitrust price. >> do you consider facebook and google competitors, collaborators, others? >> i think in the convergent market they are all of that. , i know that's kind of a flippant answer. it is really true. in my career, i have watched industry taken services go from kind of an enormously trans active. you can have compact -- comcast fighting netflix about one set of things. at the same time, they have a deal.
6:40 pm
you can see apple taking on so and so over here and major user of qualcomm chips but still get sued. the world has this wonderland quality and you cannot hold a grudge very long in this phase. you have to take issues as you come to recognize we are not friends, tomorrow we may have to be good of the order. i don't think you could be ended an internet space with the relation with the top five platforms in a significant way. beliefare under a false that you're under it or you have to find a way to work. >> what about the regulatory structure? you are regulated and your industries are regulated differently than television channels, netflix, facebook etc..
6:41 pm
should they all be regulated in a similar way? >> i think they all have to be harmonize in a cohesive regulatory philosophy. ,what i mean by that is him was all of our regulation is ancient legacy. it is about the time and best 1996 but the majority of it long before that dating back to the 1930's in which the technologies were different in the networks were different in the market structure was different. consumers were radically different. all about governing legacies that was the justification for the policies 30 or 50 or 80 years ago. and these new guys who are bigger and more powerful and wealthier and probably more significant in the direction of society and the market. they had no organic regulation
6:42 pm
in mind and the antitrust laws and have not had a more scrutinized look. that's a conscious choice of society that we had a well reasoned explanation? was it an accident of history and it was an accident of history. the --ot rational about it is about pieces that do not go together and people gain those in use the regulations against us and the use of their freedom from regulations and may not be tolerated until congress gets his head around trying to grade a coherent worldview of the tele-causal, you are going to continue. always that policy will and nobody can say we have an intentional set of national
6:43 pm
public policies around how to regulate the digital information industry. it is a hodgepodge of kind of one off stuff that you would be hard-pressed to weave a thread through in a logical way. you, the word ask choice of friendly is interesting to read as other uncritically calls for greater regulations of these tech companies we have been talking about are you concerned about , the negative regulations about privacy or resources that the ftc might have on the cable industry? >> were probably out front in supporting those efforts. i think privacy is the critical and central issue of the age. i think every legislative resource and privatization in of issuesce is a myriad of should be priority one for a number of reasons. quaint, ite and even
6:44 pm
is the underpinning of a number of essential things. it affects the degree of our individual autonomy. how much of my choice in life do i want you did over to an al gorithm? ising more my data introducing more machine substitutions of choices i make for myself. secondly, i think it affects the civility of society. i have always been of the view of what society protects is knowing enough to face something. me,, ifts used to teach you do not have something nice, don't say it. don't volunteer. there is a certain order that goes on by not killing the
6:45 pm
curtain back on virtually everything that human beings do for all the world to track and the frustration and the sort of somedation of society and of the tools is because all of the data. anddical transparency privacy is about a consumer's interest in their autonomy and metadata collected under what conditions. it is the jet fuel of economic and privacyominance put another way, the rules of competition of who can't and under what conditions is the data. it is a little bit -- and to be bipartisan, the market power. question until how they can
6:46 pm
use data privately. so i think, that is before we get to cyber threats and foreign actors attacking our system. it is not going to be any endeavor of human nature that comes down to what gets what about me and how can they use it in what way? if i had my way, this is what congress would put down every other weapon and spent an enormous amount of energy. cable were was about it as it worries about its consumers. and it relies we are not an ad fueled model. that is apples argument. we make money and we do not make money selling to you. we send you a bill. we charge you a lot. you may not like how much we charging, but we don't give you stuff for free and make up for by taking everything we know about you and selling get. we don't have the same incentive it was a different more intimate , relations with the consumer does does not lead with the more
6:47 pm
abusive kind of data practices. we read once a week about something google pays a you have not read anything like that about charter or comcast. these are not narratives that, much in our world. not that we are perfect, web a different incentive and relationship with the consumer. it is more direct and more intimate and we take your check. we just don't take your life make our money that way. we are not afraid when we think about what the public and is pretty >> there been a lot of hearings on privacy legislation on the hill and one of the issues is preemption. california passed very strong legislation. would you support legislation if it didn't preempt that california law? >> i think preemption is essential and has nothing to do with the california law. i think too often we debate these issues through the eyes
6:48 pm
and ears of the companies involved. the was the do not like preemption, these are big guys join taking -- trying to get out of predation. i see through the eyes and ears of the consumers. consumers cross state borders thered times a day on internet. the runaround around with a mobile computers and other pocket and i drive from virginia to d.c. every single day, across to maryland, i go to north carolina to see friends bring a visit my children in san francisco and arizona. am i supposed to keep track of my privacy protections and expeditious every time i change in geography? does it is conceded -- it is confused enough to consumers bring you have to tell me now i do not know what my expectations and protections are from one state to the next when as a
6:49 pm
model user i am crossing these lines all the time. if i happen to be in california and i am entitled to this. if i go next door and i am in nevada, i do not have any of that protection. that is a crummy system. not just for the company struggling, i deny no way to buy things that is good for consumers. maybe if you live in california and you are never going to leave the state and never going to use you get that crosses, strong protection and you do not have to worry about when new york does. but commerce is for rapidly. >> along those lines anything about the geographic concerns you raised, europe has judy p.r. which is a struct -- gdpr which is strong regulatory. i booked a flight to ireland. should the u.s. look when you bring up the geographic concerns increasingly
6:50 pm
connect the society? >> yeah. i do not know if this identical but i think we have a duty when we tried to craft things with global publications to figure out as many ways as we can that it is not in conflict with each other and overuse of the word harmonize. i do not think it means in use gdpr. i lived in germany for three years and i remember being really taken aback about how feel aboutropeans privacy is a true, deep civil rights. this a cut that went through the nazis -- it is a continent that went through the nazis. this resonates in the heart of europeans that in our society does not. in america, our expectations
6:51 pm
that it is driven by the constitution. we have this fourth amendment view about privacy. a reasonable expectation and if the cop comes into your house and you left your pot on a table, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. and we'll let the court throw the activity if the expectation was violated. and on the other hand, that the rummage through your truck. digested ifot privacy is a civil right or just an expectation. the tech community and has tried to sell the world it is an expectation that you should have no expectation for you the ultimate narrative of facebook some years ago, maybe it has changed, you do not have privacy , get over it. if you have no expectations or prevacid, there is nothing being violated. if you go back and look at the statements, what is happening
6:52 pm
now, i think the country below the surface is struggling with should this be a right? should we philosophically shift what this is and is about transactional expectation. crooks i went to ask and you mentioned the philosophical differences between the u.s. and europe. dpr shouldnts of g not be included in the u.s. privacy law? >> i don't know the answer to that. i do not have in front to me all of the provisions. i think the market power consequences, are you creating a inadvertently instead of solidifying the power of the large companies over small ones. i think that is something we were really got an of the u.s. some argue the gdpr has erred in
6:53 pm
the way it constructed of that. is a lot -- there this is what i would say. if i were writing, i would lay down the gdpr and lay down ofp-by-step and debate, does consumer have a right to be forgotten? does the consumer have a right to audit the data? say, which of these things do not fit to the american system and why and which one is weaker than what we would want and why? you could construct a companion, a cousin that would not be me withal but would rhy that. one of the things i worry about is, i'm afraid the citizen -- the system is so complex and so confusing that how are we going to make sure we generally empower consumers to take
6:54 pm
control? i get lots of notices to click and it is a hobson choice. click it and get to use the service. don't click it and risk not getting it. you know, we are pretty embedded, we are beyond being internet being a discretionary activity to its interactivity. you have people debating. i just give you transparent and you say yes, we're done or be done more technologically. there are literally tech tools. you have companies that sell privacy products. or maybe like the credit rating agencies. i don't understand everything that goes into credit. the government says they have to tell me everything was a year for free. i can hire companies to help me review my credit and find the problems. or i can have somebody to monitor my credit for a fee and
6:55 pm
tell me when they find a problem. i am being taught how to fix inks that are wrong. i somehow since that one day consumers will need it for their data profile. some kind of credit agency like .eview of what they know your ability to modify and correct or delete. before we have to close, you declare the internet to be an >> i think thece internet is engineered to be open and i think it is culturally dementing to be open and i do not think -- demanding
6:56 pm
to be open and i do think it will be closed. the air were here is -- error to handle ae ii was distorted legal problem. the cc cannot find a jurisdictional hook because of their staff predates the internet and congress never gave them direction to regulate. they reached for title ii as a clumsy cure for the judicial problem. the problem is that body of law has thousands of pages and lots of judicial presence and, law applications built around telephone service that i think is distorting. legislatorre's any who can tell me with a working knowledge of the hundreds of about theof things title ii.
6:57 pm
is they goxample around insisting there is no rate making and no rate making in the democratic bill. that is completely wrong. wheeler preserved the right for the commission to declare it unjust and unreasonable and reject it. the statute allows for consumers to bring class action lawsuits and that is rate regulation. even today, you will see leaders and he will see fcc supporters, we took all of it away. my fear is i do not think you can have a good command of what you took away. it's a big, harry thing. whittle it down for me start with a blank page, intentional about what you want dumping a mountain el you want.e kern
6:58 pm
congressman is absolutely do it. chris michael powell is ceo of the internet and tv association. at, first-time guest of the washington post, please come back. >> thank you. >> once tv was a three giant network frick in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, lets viewers decide all of their own what was important to them. see's that opened the door to washington policymakers for all to see brink and you unfiltered conversation. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. the landscape has clearly changed and there is no monolithic media. youtube stars are a thing.
6:59 pm
c-span big ideas is more relevant today than ever. no government money support c-span and nonpartisan coverage is a public service by satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view so you can make up your own mind. >> vice president michael pence talks about the trump administration's commitment to during thesecurity american israel public affairs committee conference. his remarks are 30 minutes. after that, will hear from senator majority leader who spoke at the conference on how the democratic party supports israel.

10 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on